Study Sheet Week 2 - Ethics PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by PromisedWonder
University of Toronto
Tags
Summary
This document appears to be study notes or lecture material covering the topic of ethics, focusing on normative ethics and consequentialist theories, like utilitarianism. The document likely outlines key concepts and arguments related to ethics.
Full Transcript
Week 1: Introduction to ethics Week 4: Normative Ethics: Consequentialism (first order moral rule) hy act Ethically? W...
Week 1: Introduction to ethics Week 4: Normative Ethics: Consequentialism (first order moral rule) hy act Ethically? W Normative Ethics:focuses on what makes actions wrong.Looks at the specific actions. Concerned with Socrates Nature of Justice: 1) acting good is independentlygood → the rational part (seeks truth oral standard and guidelines about how one ought to act m and wisdom) is able to rule over the appetitive part (physical pleasures & material desires), spirit Consequentialism: One is morally required to act ina whichever way would have the best outcome. Morally, part (honor and self respect) = there is harmony and you have a chance to reach happiness. it depends on the consequences. Glaucon Argument:Acting ethically isn’t inherentlygood; it’s better to act unethically while Types of outcomes: egoism outcomes for (me) that matterthe most, state conse., act c, rulecon appearing ethical to others. Utilitarianism: Premises: Bentham Utl: The principle of Utility. Quantitativeaspect of pleasure and pain. (intensity, duration) Mill:The Greatest Happiness Principle: right actionsare those that prioritize most happiness least amount of pain. Quantitative and Qualitative, distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Intelligent ones are better umans are naturally self-interested and inclined to "do wrong" for personal gain. H than physical ones. (more desirable). Problem is that those who experience high faculties will rather be Being wronged is worse than the benefit of doing wrong (e.g., the pain of being stolen dissatisfied, and keep them, and engage in their higher abilities, rather then just have physical pleasures like from outweighs the joy of stealing). a satisfied pig, because that will never satisfy them. To avoid harm, people create a social contract agreeing to act justly, not because Utilitarianism Moral Rightness: says an outcome isbest when it has the most utility (eg. pleasure), is the they value justice, but to prevent greater harm. right action. Utilitarianism Reasoning:By nature we are pleasureseeking pain avoiding beings. 1) pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends. 2) anything else that is desirable ultimately stems ypes of Goods: 1)Desired for their own sake (e.g.,joy) 2) Desired for their benefits (e.g., money, T from 1). medicine) (galucon this category) 3) Desired for both their own sake and benefits (e.g., health, Moral Theory knowledge) Socrates saids justice/ being goood is in this category. Moral Principles: General statements or propositionsthat suggest which actions are written and wrong. Ring of Gyges Example:Gyges, a shepherd, finds aring granting invisibility. He uses it to seduce (principle of utility or greatest happiness principle). Different Moral theories have different ways of evaluating the queen, kill the king, and seize power. Glaucon argues this shows people act morally only for the same case. (the consequences above) social consequences, not genuine love of justice The Theoretical Aim– what makes action right or wrong,determined by the theory. The Practical Aim– decision making procedure to makeright moral judgment in specific situations. irst-order moral views: These are judgments aboutspecific actions, deciding what is right or F Connecting the two aims: Theoretical Aim is Principle:X is right if only if Y. wrong, good or bad, based on the situation. For example, they might focus on whether an action is Practical aim: Fact: In this situation Y is present. Conclusion therefore, we should do X (act in accordance morally right, considering factors like consequences or intentions (e.g., "Is this action right?" or with the principle). "Should I focus on outcomes or motives?"). Dentonic Categories/Concepts: ones duty (moral obligation).Is the right action required or permissible or Second-order moral views: These reflect on the natureof morality itself. Instead of focusing on wrong and forbidden. specific actions, second-order views question the foundation and justification of moral beliefs, such Evaluative Categories:the things in the world thathave value. (what is good or bad, what is worth pursuing as whether morality isobjective(unchanging, independentof human beliefs) orsubjective(based or avoiding. Good outcome. on personal or cultural beliefs). . Week 2 Meta Ethics: Anti Realism (moral claims are not objective or Universal) second order Week 5: Normative Ethics Deontology (non consequentialist) (first order) eta Ethics: explores the nature, scope and meaning of ethical concepts. M asics of Deontology:Morality is based on rules orduties B Anti Realism:moral facts do not exist or are notobjective rather than consequences, following Kant'scategorical imperative. The rightness or wrongness of actionsdepends elativism R on intentions and methods, not outcomes. Causing harm Cultural or Cognitive Relativismall our ideas andtheories are local formations, rooted in particular times and places. for any question, there is actively (doing) is morally worse than allowing harm no independent truth of the matter. passively (allowing). Moral or Ethical Relativism: concern with moral valuesspecifically focuses on the idea that moral values are culturally dependent, on particular Key Differences: Non-Consequentialism:Right actions times and places. There is no universal value of morality. are determined by rules, not by promoting good outcomes. - Descriptive Moral Relativism: Looks at the differencesin societies, describes the differences. Consequentialism:Moral value lies in consequencesalone, - Normative Moral relativism: the truth/ falsity ofmoral claims is not absolute or universal but relative to particular times and places. with no constraints on achieving good outcomes. What is wrong and Right. Kant's Argument:Morality applies to all rationalagents and is determineda priori(independent of experience),similar to AA Reading Cultural relativism argues that individuals' values and behaviors are shaped by their culture. This presents a challenge to human A mathematical truths. Right actions are not based on rights, as applying one culture’s moral standards universally can undermine respect for other cultures. examples but on universal moral principles. Three-Step Argument for Cultural Relativism: Imperatives in Kant’s Theory: Hypothetical Imperative: Actions done to achieve specific goals (e.g., studying to pass a test).Categorical Imperative:Actions done fortheir own 1. o respect individuals, we must respect the culture that shapes their values and beliefs.Disrespecting their culture would mean T sake (e.g., “do not lie”)—moral rules that hold universally. disrespecting the individual, as their culture is integral to who they are. The Categorical Imperative’s Two Formulations: 1st . 2 There is no objective method to compare cultures as better or worse, making it impossible to claim one is better or worse. formulation Universal Law:Act only according to maxims 3. Moral standards are relative to culture, so imposing one culture’s morals on another contradicts the idea of universal human rights by that could be universal laws without contradiction.2nd suggesting that one set of values should apply to everyone. FormulationHumanity Principle:Treat others as endsin themselves, never solely as means to an end. Example:The maxim “I will steal because I want something” ackie's argument asserts that morality doesn't exist objectively, viewing moral judgments as a biological illusion. M fails, as if universalized, it would undermine ownership and 1)There are no objective values, as different societies have different moral judgments. make stealing meaningless. 2)These differences challenge treating moral judgments as objective truths—not due to cultural relativity, but because the variations make it hard to Duties:Derived from the categorical imperative, dutiesare discern any universal truth. either:Perfect Duties:Strict, with no exceptions(e.g., avoid 3)Disagreement alone doesn’t disprove moral objectivity. lying).Imperfect Duties:Flexible, allowing exceptions(e.g., 4)Non-moral disagreements (e.g., views on monogamy) lack sufficient evidence to resolve differences, but both sides think they're living their best developing talents). life. Objection to Deontology:Real-life complexities canmake it 5)Moral disagreements stem from differing ways of life (e.g., views on monogamy). difficult to apply universal rules in practice, as outcomes and 6)These disagreements reflect different lifestyles, not objective moral truths. nuances can’t always be foreseen. ackie's "Strangeness of Morality" suggests that if objective moral truths existed, they would be radically different from anything else in the M universe, requiring a special faculty for moral perception to recognize them. 1)Metaphysical: Objective valueswould be unique, unlike anything else. 2)Epistemological: Awareness of them would requirea special moral perception, distinct from ordinary knowledge. Week 3: Meta Ethics: Realism (looking at the truth behind morals: claims are objective) secondorder Week 6 First Order moral View ealism:Moral facts do exist and are objective R ristotle a RachelsResponse to moral Relativist: open mindednessab (cultural practises) doesn't take Virtue Ethics:Morality is rooted in developing goodcharacter. By cultivating virtues and emulating a come at the expense of critical thinking virtuous person, we live morally and flourish. Problems with relativism for Rachels:1)no longersay practices of another society are morally Cultivation:Start by finding a good role model, imitatingthem, and practicing regularly. inferior to our own2)We could no longer criticizethe practices of our society3)the idea of moral Practical Wisdom (Phronesis):This wisdom, gainedthrough experience, helps us reason what is good or progress is called into doubt (civil rights movements?). bad and act appropriately. It develops over time and is essential for moral judgment. What the situation is, Limits to relativism: some moral claims all societiesmust embrace. Care for children, prohibition what the situation calls for, and how to act in the right way. against murder. If societies did not have this they couldn't exist (proofbycontr). Virtue and Vice:Virtues are praiseworthy traits (e.g.,courage) that lie between vices of excess and Enoch:Objectivityenoch is facts that exist independentlyof what we think about it, seek to deficiency (e.g., cowardice and recklessness). Vices are traits seen as morally defective. Moral virtues: discover not those we make true. courage. Intellectual virtues wisdom or prudence. Honesty doesn't mean being candid, it is also about being Moral Objectivity Categories:1)response independenttruths:independently of anyone’s kind (Hurt House) thoughts or attitudes.eg. 1+1= 2 (fact of the matter) 2)Response dependent truths: true because Eudaimonia=happiness, the best life, of collectingvirtues and flourishing. To flourish involves fulfillment of of our thoughts and attitudes about them ex. We give Money/Cash value function, which is living a life guided by reason.Our appetitive part needs to listen to our rational parr. Three Tests for Objectivity:Spinach Test:A childjokes, "I’m glad I don’t like spinach; if I did, I’d Function: Function nutritive part (plant like involves growing and developing), appetitive part (animal like, eat it, and it’s yucky." This shows taste is subjective. Replace "spinach" with "murder," and it no involves desires and needs), and rational part (unique to human beings). longer works as a joke—indicating that moral beliefs are objective, not just preferences. Hursthouse's V Rules:Each virtue suggests eithera guideline (e.g., "act benevolently") or prohibition (e.g., Phenomenology Test: A) Disagreement:When people disagreeabout subjective preferences "avoid malevolence") based on the situation. (e.g., Disney vs. Netflix), there’s no "right" answer. In contrast, debates on moral issues like Example: Choosing to attend a friend’s birthday party shows loyalty and avoids selfishness or disloyalty. euthanasia feel closer to factual debates, suggesting we treat moral beliefs as objectiveB) Deliberation: Preferences(e.g., which food truckto visit) are personal choices. But decisions on We ek 2 continues: objective issues, like which transport is safest, seek a factual answer. Moral decisions (e.g., eek 2 continued: Mackie's argument asserts that morality doesn't exist objectively, viewing W donating to sick kids) feel closer to objective deliberation than personal choice.Counterfactual moral judgments as a biological illusion. Test:Objective truths hold up in hypothetical scenarios.For instance, even if society viewed 1)There are no objective values, as different societies have different moral judgments. smoking differently, it would still cause cancer. Similarly, murder would still be wrong, even if 2)These differences challenge treating moral judgments as objective truths—not due to people’s views on it changed. This shows moral beliefs resemble objective facts rather than subjective opinions. cultural relativity, but because the variations make it hard to discern any universal truth. Morality as Objective?: We hv good reason to thinkwe are trying to get to moral truths, but not 3)Disagreement alone doesn’t disprove moral objectivity. sure there's universal truth of morality.Morality aspires objectivity. 4)Non-moral disagreements (e.g., views on monogamy) lack sufficient evidence to resolve Defense: differences, but both sides think they're living their best life. Self Defeating Argument: The self-defeat argument says that if someone argues that 5)Moral disagreements stem from differing ways of life (e.g., views on monogamy). disagreements about specific moral issues(like abortion)show there’s no objective truth, they 6)These disagreements reflect different lifestyles, not objective moral truths. s hould also believedisagreements about moral theory(whether morality is objective or subjective) show there’s no objective truth. If they don’t apply the same reasoning to both, their argument contradicts itself, making it self-defeating. Week IrGINA HELD Care Ethics Core Idea:Morality dependson interdependent relationships, V thical Framework:More than one factor can make anact morally right. An action is morally right if it has E emphasizing considerations often neglected in other moral theories. moreprima facierightness than alternatives. Multipleprima facieduties exist, and we usepractical wisdomto Five Major Features: identify ourduty properly(the duty that outweighsothers in a given situation). 1) Central Focus on Relationships:Care ethics recognizesthat we are dependent on others for Prima Facie Duties:Self-evident moral obligationsrecognized through maturity and understanding, similar to much of our lives (e.g., in childhood, illness, old age). This contrasts with theories that view mathematical truths. Key examples include:Fidelity:Keeping promisesReparation:Correcting past wrongs people as fully autonomous agents.] These duties aren’t equally weighted and can conflict. 2)Value of Emotion:Emotions like empathy and compassionare essential for moral Promises and Practical Reasoning:Promises focus onpast actions rather than future consequences. decision-making. They guide us to recognize and respond to others' needs. Fulfilling a promise is typically a duty, but conflicts (e.g., aiding others) may justify breaking it. Practical 3)Beyond Abstract Reasoning: While abstract reasoninghas value, care ethics argues it reasoning helps determine which duty is ourduty properwhen conflicts arise. cannot solely determine morality; contextual, relational understanding is equally crucial. Relationships:Relationships hold moral weight inRoss’s view—e.g., promisor/promisee, friend/friend, 4)Public vs. Private Life:Traditional moral theoriesoften focus only on public life, overlooking citizen/citizen. the moral significance of private relationships (e.g., family, friendships). Care ethics integrates Theory Basis:Ross combines elements from other ethicaltheories, like utilitarianism and virtue ethics, for a both. more balanced approach. 5)Critique of Individualism: Care ethics challengesthe idea of humans as purely independent Objections to Other Theories: Utilitarianism:Rossvalues benevolence but rejects maximizing happiness as agents. It holds that reliance on relationships, and incorporating both rational and emotional the sole duty, recognizing other intrinsic goods like good character and intelligence.Kantian Deontology:Ross understanding, aligns better with human nature. supports justice as essential but disagrees with the idea of absolute, unbreakable moral rules. Background Kolberg’s Stages of Moral Development: Preconventional Moralityobedience punishment, self interest (rewarad principle).ConventionalMorality: interpersonal accord, law and order. (good person would doPost ConventionalMorality: social contract, and Objection to ross is point: subjectivity in rankingprima facie duties. principles.(responsibility to others). Kohlberg's Study:He observed moral reasoning developmentfrom childhood to adulthood using male participants only, arguing we become more rational with age. Criticism includes lack of female participants, as he believed women’s focus on context and relationships did not fit his universal framework.Gilligan's Critique:She objectedto Kohlberg’s focus on abstract, universal principles, arguing it led him to specific conclusions that favored male reasoning. Ethics of Care vs. Ethics of Justice:Gilligan introducedthe ethics of care, emphasizing relationships and context over abstract principles. She argued women are socially conditioned to think in terms of care rather than justice, not due to biological differences but socialization Week 8 Applied Ethics: Animal Rights Week 9: Applied Ethics: Speech and Expression Week 10: Applied Ethics: Climate Change iberal movementattempts-expand basic moral principlesequality L ree Speech:right of thought, opinion and expression,highest F limate Change:it is difficult to pick out what isethically relevant C Animal liberation movement: demands extension of basicprinciple aspiration of common people is to have freedom of speech and what is not. of equality to non human animals hallenges to Free Speech 1) Defamation:making falsestatements that harm C Garvey three aspects make moral evaluations climate change Liberation1) no, they are non rational decisions,2) yes, there are someone. a) Libel, defamation written statement b) slander defamation oral difficult: 1)Global Features, it is caused by people everywhere, its statements. Broad laws= infrige on freedom speech, not when balanced correctly, differences, but should not exclude basic equality between them since they allow for legitimate criticism.2) classifiedinformation, as a way of effects are globally shared 2) Intergenerational Features, does not Anything Unique about humans that gives them moral status protecting it, a) trade secrets tech copyrights, secret recipes,b) state secrets, happen immediately past actions (historical emissions) can cause issue of national security.3) Hate Speech,publicspeech that expresses hate or harm in the present that will continue to harm in the future 3) inger Equality of Consideration: all beings shouldbe given equal S encourages violence towards a person or group, based on something such as Theoretical Ineptitude, the harm builds slowly over time, and it’s weight, equal consideration to shared interests, which does not race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.Why?A)blowing off steam (venting off indirect, so it is harm for us to understand and see long term hatred that is boiling up) b.)message to target: you are not welcome, you are not necessitate identical treatment and rights. Ex. Dogs & humans share wanted you should be afraid c) message to community: we know some you agree, effects. an interest in avoiding pain and pleasure, but not intellectual like you are not alone. The problem: Hard4countries to act, waiting for others to lead education.Equality not depended on,1) intelligence,moral faculties or aldon Hate Speech argument:hate speech should beregulated W 1)Tragedy of the Commons: self interest (maximizingshare), c apacities, physical strength,ex. Impaired treatedas equals but a perspective, uphold human dignity,ensure inclusion, respect for vulnerable over exploiting a common resource, like but not limited to fossil moral ideal that we are striving for, tells us howwe ought to treat others, even fuels, it gets depleted, leading to collective disaster. spite out differenced not a description of traits or abilities. Challenge minorities. 1) Function hateful expression(signs, racist graffiti, cross burnings): 2)Collective Action Problems, prisoners dilemma:if everyone animal liberationmome demand expansion basic moralprinciple of equality to nonhuman to send messages to both thetargets and the community. Aim to acts rationally (maximize returns, which is expected benefit minus tilitarianism Singer: consequences, not rights, ofthe U make it “Part of the permanent visible fabric of society”, meaning it expected cost) the outcome is worse overall. Ex. actions are based contemplated act that matter, when determining moral good actions is not just isolated incident, but becomes apa environ contribute to on what others do. group project, like climate change. for by promoting pleasure, avoid pain. To determine so, Singer harm. Instead of Rationality, think of it asResponsibilityGroup argues we must further the interests of those affected, pain and The Harm in Hate Speech: 1) undermines inclusiveness:weaken Responsibility, what is the fair thing to do, and who should do pleasure. Singers argue the capacity to suffer, necessary conditions the sense of security we have when we inhabit public space, and it. to have interests at all, granting moral consideration. Ex. chair v. cat. social cohesion, making somer groups feel excluded, and society = The Solution:Justice helps us decide who should act it is necessary to take the interests of animals seriously and to weigh shared space some not safe 2) undermines dignity, – persons Two types of Justice1)Retributive: who gets whichpunishment any adverse effect on those interests from human actions as part of standing in society, which entitles them to be treated as equal. Hate and why. The punishment is only just if it fits the crime. the consequences of those actions. Singer argues that humans speech challenges fundamental respect, treating others as inferior, 2) Distributive:focuses on distributing resources(eg. clean air, neglect animal interests due to speciesism—a bias that unjustly diminishing a person's equality in society, leadsto loss in dignity, wealth) fairly, equality is an ideal, but sometimes fairness means devalues animals, akin to racism or sexism, which arbitrarily exclude which people should be able to rely on in daily lives. giving more to those who need it most or were harmed the most. certain groups from moral consideration.People justify animal Grand Experimentsociety is to coexist and work togetherdespite Climate change, Darby argues, that it does apply to everyone mistreatment by pointing to supposed "defects," like the inability to diversity, like race, religion. Hate speech disrupts this experience, by equally and some have more responsibility than others, because speak or reason as humans do. However, severely disabled humans reinforcing idea society only for certain groups underlying inclus,, Distributive Justice Departing from Equality: 1) casesthat with similar limitations aren't subjected to experiments or Regulation of Hate Speech: becomes it represents anintentional depend on agreement or consent2)cases that are historicalor exploitation. Singer argues that justifying animal exploitation based act that goes against our core values, equality, respect, undermining backwards looking–responsibility for climate change. solely on species differences is no different than justifying inclusivity and diversity. Polluter Pays Principle: those who causes the mostpollution, are discrimination based on race or sex. Common Response: 1) disagree with the message butuphoald the most responsible —like the U.S., which built its wealth by emitting medium. right to say it, but what saying is wrong. Waldon disagrees the most emissions through heavy fossil fuel use—have the nimal Rights Theory ART: A implies those that targeted should learn to live with it. Those should greatest responsibility to reduce emissions under distributive Objection: The utilitarian view does not necessarily prioritize inviolable rights, as it tolerate envir, overlooking the harm caused to dignity and security. justice, Similar to if you spill water on the floor you clean it off. focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number, which could justify Our Tie: to Historical Responsibility sacrificing the well-being of one individual for the greater benefit of many. This 2) It is not harmful 3) Even if it is harmful, the harm should be implies that if humans do not have absolute, inviolable rights under utilitarianism, accepted in the interest of freedom of speech. Aries no, because Incorrect you are responsible previous generations actions: 1) nonhuman animals will not have them either. The human rights revolution, which harms are significant enough to justify regulation to protect. you had nothing to do with their actions, 2)their actions have emphasizes the protection of individual rights, contrasts with utilitarianism and Waldon unrestricted, MILL limiting speech can be harmful. nothing to do with you (this applies) aligns more with rights-based theories in political philosophy, where certain rights Mill freedom of speechis essential for the discoveryof truth and Our responsibility: despite not directly causing theactions, the are considered inviolable and cannot be sacrificed for greater utility. This shift has people alive,nations are receiving the benefits, they are the led political philosophy to embrace rights-based theories, which argue that certain the avoidance of error, any doctrine should be freely discussed. rights should be protected regardless of the overall consequences NearSpeech Should not be restricted beneficiaries of those past emissions. 2) if these benefits are Implausibility1) death human worse then animal, greaterwrong 2) ex. Young old 1)Universal Consensus:Restricting free speech isunjust, its causally linked to the suffering of others (eg. rising sea levels in death both hv inviolable rights, even 1 is greater 2) utilitarian, right to life strength harmful to silence, even one, same as silencing all of us, because other countries), then we are implicated in that harm. contribute greater good. not utilitarian theory. 3) animals hv all rights humans hv, we need to evaluate and challenge ideas for society's development. Counterargument 1) Intention can mitigate or eliminate our even humans have rights allocated differently, prisoners, children, adult, equal responsibility ex. Responsible for lying you need to intend to involuting compatible with range of different rights 2)Restricting speech robs humanity: a) it robs ustoday,, and Animals SelvesKymlicka & Donaldson reject the ideathat community of justice, from future generations b) it robs from those who agree with the deceive. Response: Benefit from others expenses, without intent, aligns only with community of humans, possess inviolable rights, all creatures speech and even from those who disagree you still have a duty to help fix the resulting harm. 2) Misattribute with a subjective existence should be seen as subjects of justice and bearers of 3) Consequences of Restricting speech: a) if opinionis right, responsibility, for example the car hitting a lamppost example, but inviolable rights- individuals' most basic interests that cannot be sacrificed 4 the opressing is bad. we miss the exchange for error for truth.. b) if the there is another car that actually hit it. Similarly this can mitigate or greater good of others, but still has exceptions. 1) Killing a non-human animal is a eliminate responsibility. Science shows that emissions cause violation of the basic inviolable right to live, just like killing a human being 2) if it opinion is wrong, oppression it is bad because we lose the has phenomenal consciousness– the ability to experience the world subjectively– opportunity to strengthen the truth by against errors. Like flat climate change. is a crucial moral factor. Sentient beings, including humans, and animals are earthers theories or conspairies, disproving these ideas crucial Applying theory:Utilitarian, greatest happiness principle.Deontology categorical imperative. Virtue Ethics, if people are taking bad actions towardsthe environment they will conscious of their experiences, from inside– vulnerable to pleasure, pain, jistifying what we believe. According to Mill, something can only be suffering, fear, death. Such capacity - rightful subjects of justice. cultivate vices rather than virtues prudence(cautious), humility, courage. considered true if it has withstood rigorous testing, not simply 1)Virtue ethics addresses the problem of consequentialism—theidea that Objections, 1) religious texts grant human dominionpver animals. Reject private faith or sacred revelation, only interest in public reason 2) animals are sentient, because it hasn’t been disproven. Therefore, refuting these ideas individual actions, ex. driving a car, are too small to affect global climate change. but not persons, only people (language, reasoning) are entitled to inviolable rights. helps avoid mistakes and ensures our beliefs are well-tested. While these actions may seem insignificant in terms of consequences, virtue Response a) is there a coherent distinction between selves (sentient beings), 4)Marketplace of Ideas:Maximal free speech is a safeguardagainst error. ethics shifts the focus from outcomes to character and moral integrity, sufficient for moral consideration, then additional traits defined as persons (beings e can never be absolutely certain an opinion is wrong, so restricting speech W emphasizing the type of person we are through our choices. with higher cognitive capacities) b) even if there is a distinction why does that based on our own certainty is flawed. The best way to avoid mistakes is through :2)it works because it captures better captures our moral phenomenology– how justify ascribing rights on the basis of species membership c) there are going to the free exchange of ideas. However, this doesn't mean we should avoid believing we experience moral situations, first person experience of morality, eg. garden vs be human that fail to meet any stated definitions of personhood anything. Rejecting all beliefs out of caution is cowardice, not conscientiousness. sidewalk. Virtue ethics doesn't just critique the outcome, but judges the person's Value of nature: does not go far enough to extendmoral standings to all natural We should only believe something is true if it has been rigorously tested and character, for ex. It is careless, aligns with that by framing morality in terms of entities, rivers, ecosystems have interest in flushing should be taken account refuted, not because it is tradition or law. virtues and vices, relates to how people naturally think about morality. when making moral judgements. Reponse, it's worthy of respect and protections, 5) Challenges to Mills View: 1defemation, condidentional information, and dignity Galvagni argument: persuades and motivates individuals to act sustainably. Even its moral status different from sentient. Interests, being owed direct duties of undermining speech. Non descriptive uses of speech, that makes people feel if no single action causes climate change, actions still reflect who we are. justice can only exist with beings with subjective experience. Rocks, flower are unsafe. If he cannot account for these, we need to accept atht some speech Impact: by cultivating virtuous habits, individuals contribute to broader cultural things, things are not subject to justice or injustice, rather justice is owed to subjects experience the world should be restricted. shifts toward sustainability and moral responsibility.
